See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322336339

Spatial Variation of Aquifer Parameters from Coastal Aquifers of Sindhudurg

District, Maharashtra Using Pore-water Resistivity and Bulk Resistivity

Article · January 2018

DOI: 10.21523/gcj3.17010104

CITATION READS

1 358

2 authors:

Naidu Suneetha Gautam Gupta

Indian Institute of Geomagnetism Indian Institute of Geomagnetism
11 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   733 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

South DVP View project

GATHA COGNITION View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gautam Gupta on 12 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017. S. Naidu and G. Gupta

Original Research Paper

Spatial Variation of Aquifer Parameters from Coastal

Aquifers of Sindhudurg District, Maharashtra Using
Pore-water Resistivity and Bulk Resistivity
Suneetha Naidu, Gautam Gupta*
Indian Institute of Geomagnetism, Kalamboli Highway, New Panvel (W), Navi Mumbai - 410218 (India).

Abstract Article history

Estimation of hydraulic parameters in coastal aquifers is an important task in groundwater Received: 26 December 2017
resource assessment and development. An attempt is made to estimate these parameters Accepted: 02 January 2018
using geoelectrical data in combination with pore-water resistivity of existing wells. In the
present study, 29 resistivity soundings were analysed along with 29 water samples, Keywords
collected from the respective dug wells and boreholes, in order to compute hydraulic Coastal aquifers;
parameters like formation factor, porosity, hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity from
Hydraulic conductivity;
coastal region of north Sindhudurg district, Maharashtra, India. The result shows some
Porosity;
parts of the study area reveal relatively high value of hydraulic conductivity, porosity and Transmissivity;
transmissivity. Further, a negative correlation is seen between hydraulic conductivity and Resistivity sounding;
bulk resistivity. The hydraulic conductivity is found to vary between 0.014 and 293 m/day,
Maharashtra.
and the transmissivity varied between 0.14 and 11,722 m2/day. The transmissivity values
observed here are in good correspondence with those obtained from pumping test data of
Editor(s)
Central Ground Water Board. These zones also have high aquifer thickness and therefore
characterize high potential within the water-bearing formation. A linear, positive P. S. Hire
relationship between transverse resistance and transmissivity is observed, suggesting
increase in transverse resistance values indicate high transmissivity of aquifers. These
relations will be extremely vital in characterization of aquifer system, especially from
crystalline hard rock area.
© 2017 GATHA COGNITION® All rights reserved.

1 INTRODUCTION

Groundwater is the most prominent natural resource for
human life. Excessive groundwater withdrawals have
caused encroachment of seawater into the fresh water
regions of coastal aquifers, resulting in a worldwide
seawater intrusion problem (Werner et al., 2013). Due to
rapid growth in population and agriculture, the
exploitation of groundwater resources is expanding
globally and therefore a cumulative need is required in
the field of groundwater management especially in
ecologically affected areas. This is more essential due to
saline water ingress into coastal aquifers, causing
serious concerns in terms of both environmental and
economic impacts (Werner, 2010; Shi and Jiao, 2014).
In view of this fact, assessable description of the
aquifers has become important in order to address most
* Author address for correspondence
Indian Institute of Geomagnetism, Kalamboli Highway, New Panvel (W), Navi Mumbai – 410218, Maharashtra (India).
Tel.: +91 9820387080
E-mails: suneethageophy@gmail.com (S. Naidu); gupta_gautam1966@yahoo.co.in (G. Gupta - Corresponding author).
of the hydrological and hydrogeological problems.
Formation factor (Fa), porosity (ϕ), hydraulic
conductivity (k) and transmissivity (T) are the
fundamental properties describing the subsurface
hydrology. Usually hydraulic parameters of the aquifers
are calculated from pumping tests. However, it is very
expensive and time consuming to drill the wells at every
location. Besides, the pumping test method yields results
appropriate only to a small section of the aquifer.
Therefore, better parameter characterization methods are
adopted to study the aquifer parameters, especially in
hard rock regions.
Surface geophysical methods may contribute
substantially towards aquifer characterization.

http://dx.doi.org/10.21523/gcj3.17010104 © 2017 GATHA COGNITION® All rights reserved

28
Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017.
Geoelectrical method, especially the Vertical Electrical
Sounding (VES) is a relatively economical, quantitative
and non-invasive technique used for locating
sites/depths for groundwater exploitation. Besides, it is
used as an effective tool for ascertaining the subsurface
geological framework of an area to solve or detect the
hydrological, geological and geo technical problems
(Ward, 1990). The potential benefits of this method in
hydrogeological site characterization and aquifer
mapping have been stated in numerous studies (Kelly,
1977; Huntley, 1986; Niwas and de Lima, 2003;
Cassidy et al., 2014; Das et al., 2016). It is used
routinely for aquifer zone delineation and evaluation of
the aquifer characteristics. Since a correlation exists
between hydraulic and electrical properties, as both
properties are related to the pore space structure and
heterogeneity (Rubin, 2003), an integration of aquifer
parameters calculated from boreholes and surface
resistivity parameters is a viable solution to estimate the
hydraulic parameters.
Several investigators have characterized and
estimated aquifer properties from electrical sounding
data in different geologic environments (Batte et al.,
2010; Majumdar and Das, 2011; Sikandar and Christen,
2012; Asfahani, 2012; Niwas and Celik, 2012; Nwosu
et., al 2013). Soupious et al., (2006) used vertical
electrical sounding (VES) data and Dar-Zarrouk (DZ)
parameters and suggested a relationship between
transverse resistance and the transmissivity of aquifers
in Keritis Basin in Chania (Crete-Greece). In these
studies several mathematical equations and correlations
were developed to estimate hydraulic aquifer properties
from surficial electrical data. However, Sattar et al.,
(2016) are of the view that these estimations are area
specific and likely to change in different geologic
provinces.
Figure 1. Location map of the study area showing the geochemical sampling points and the vertical electrical
sounding (VES) points (after GSI, 2000).
S. Naidu and G. Gupta
A relation between the aquifer intrinsic
permeability and formation factor to estimate
transmissivity from borehole resistivity measurements
was established by Croft (1971). However, Worthington
(1975) obtained an inverse relation between the
formation factor and inter-granular permeability. Kelly
(1977) established an empirical relation between aquifer
electrical resistivity and aquifer hydraulic conductivity
and a semi-empirical relation between the aquifer
formation factor and hydraulic conductivity. In the
present study, an attempt has been made to ascertain the
relationship between aquifer and geoelectrical properties
in combination with hydro-geochemical information in
coastal area of Sindhudurg district, Maharashtra which
will improve the characterization of aquifer parameters
in the coastal region.
2 STUDY AREA AND GEOLOGICAL
ATTRIBUTES
The study area is a narrow strip between the Sahaydri
ranges and Arabian Sea extending from latitude 16º N to
16.5º N and longitude 73º E to 73.74º E in Sindhudurg
district, Maharashtra, India (Figure 1). Different types of
rock formations exist in the study area having varied
petro-physical properties, imparting different capacities
to store and transmit water. Geologically the study area
exposes rocks ranging from Archean to Quaternary
period. The Archean granites and gneisses are medium
to coarse grained and consists of quartz, hornblende,
orthoclase biotite and microcline (CGWB, 2014).
Dharwarian meta-sediments (Archean), Kaladgi
formation (Precambrian), Deccan Trap lava flows
(Upper Cretaceous to Lower Eocene age), Laterite
(Pleistocene) and Alluvial deposits (Recent to Sub-
Recent) are the water bearing formations in this
29
Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017.
district (CGWB, 2014). The Kaladgi formation occurs in
limited patches and thus does not form potential aquifer
in the area. The Alluviums has limited areal extent
found mainly along the coast. As the primary porosity is
insignificant in the Deccan trap basalts, secondary
porosity due to jointing and fracturing plays an
important role in groundwater movement.
The district falls in humid and high rainfall zone. The
annual rainfall ranges from 2542-3938 mm from North
to South (CGWB, 2014). Fluctuations in the temperature
with an average annual rainfall of around 3,287 mm are
not significant in this coastal region wherein the mean
daily maximum temperature is 32.7 ºC and the mean
daily minimum temperature is 18.7 ºC, while the relative
humidity is greater than 60%. Groundwater level in the
study area varies from 2 to 20 m below ground level
(CGWB, 2014).
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this work, 29 Schlumberger VES were considered
from the study area (Figure 1) with a maximum current
electrode half-spacing (AB/2) of 100 m. Resistivity
measurements was carried out using a digital signal-
enhancement resistivity meter (IGIS make, Hyderabad).
All the 29 VES stations were conducted close to pre-
existing wells. A total of 29 water samples (Figure 1),
collected from the respective dug wells and boreholes
were used for the determination of pore-water
resistivity.
The calculated apparent resistivity data were
inverted to construct true geological model of the
subsurface using IPI2WIN software (Bobachev, 2003).
The aquifer model parameters (layer resistivity and layer
thickness) for all 29 VES sites were used for estimating
the hydraulic parameters. The resolution of resistivity
data interpretation is often hindered due to some
geophysical similarities in the behavior of different
geomaterials. In view of this, secondary geophysical
parameters ( , transverse resistance and S, longitudinal
conductance) (also known as Dar Zarrouk, (D-Z)
parameters) are used to minimize these uncertainties
(Maillet, 1947).
Several relationships between transverse
resistance ( ), longitudinal conductance (S),
transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity have been
established by different workers (Ungemach et al.,
1969; Kelly, 1977; Mazáč et al., 1985; Niwas and
Singhal, 1985; Huntley, 1986; Mazáč et al., 1988;
Boerner et al., 1996; Christensen and Sorensen, 1998;
Rubin and Hubbard, 2005; Soupis et al., 2007). These
relationships were essentially site specific.
In order to acquire quantitative information on
groundwater flow and pollutant transport modeling,
evaluation of hydraulic properties of any given aquifer
system is of prime importance. These aquifer hydraulic
properties are obtained either from conventional
pumping tests carried out in wells or from laboratory
core samples experiments (Soupios et al., 2007). In the
S. Naidu and G. Gupta
present study, using the Kozeny–Carman–Bear (KCB)
equation (Domenico and Schwartz, 1990), hydraulic
conductivity values were estimated. The porosity (ϕ)
and other petro physical parameter required in KCB
equation was calculated using Archie’s empirical law
(Archie, 1942).
(1)
where, , , , and are bulk resistivity, pore-
water resistivity, pore geometry factor, cementation
factor and fractional porosity, respectively.
Equation 1 is applicable to clay free medium
only and thus ratio is known as the intrinsic
formation factor (Fi). Accordingly, equation 1 could be
re-written as (equation 2),
( ) ( )
(2)
The coefficients and is usually determined from
core samples for each site under investigation. But, due
to unavailability of core samples in the study area, the
values for and reported in published literature was
used to obtain porosity values.
Worthington (1993) advocated three different
expressions to compute intrinsic formation factor
corresponding to the porosity of samples from different
sites. A fourth expression is given by Jackson et al.,
(1978) and De Lima and Sharma (1990) where the
coefficient α has the value of 1 while m varies from 1.3
to 2.5. As mentioned earlier, Archie’s formula (equation
(1) and (2)) is applicable only for clay-free, clean,
consolidated sediments and therefore any departure
from these assumptions from actual field data make the
equation invalid. Worthington (1993) proposed that for
unclean, clayey and shaley sands and a mixture of sand/
gravels, some remedial measure for clay conductivity is
required and thus in the present study, the coefficient α
has the value of unity while m is taken as 2.5.
Several researchers have given different models
which are basically derived empirically using the notion
of parallel conductor (Patnode and Wyllie, 1950;
Winsauer and McCardell, 1953; Waxman and Smits,
1968; Sen et al., 1988). In the present study, the
Archie’s equation was modified using the Waxman–
Smits model (Vinegar and Waxman, 1984) which
relates the apparent formation factor ( ) (which is the
ratio of bulk resistivity to pore-water resistivity) and
intrinsic formation factor ( ), after taking into account
the shale effects. According to Worthington (1993),
( ) (3)
where, term is related to the effects of surface
conduction due to clay particles. In case of surface
conduction effects are non-existent, the apparent
formation factor ( ) is equal to the intrinsic formation
factor ( ). Rearranging the terms in equation 3, we
obtain,
30
Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017. S. Naidu and G. Gupta

( ) (4) The secondary geophysical parameters of

significance in this study are longitudinal conductance
Consequently, plotting the pore-water resistivity ( ) as S, transverse resistance and electrical anisotropy λ
a function of enables us to get the corrected values. which are given after (Zohdy, 1974) for -layer as,

The relation theoretically results in a straight line and
is denoted by slope (Das et al., 2016). The value of
the corrected formation factor thus obtained will
subsequently facilitate us to estimate porosity via
equation 2. The above approach is followed by using
bulk resistivity obtained from the one-dimensional
(1D) resistivity inversion coupled with pore-water
resistivities measured from wells near VES stations.
However, some uncertainty prevails here due to fact that
a few of the wells are at some distance away from the
corresponding VES points.
Table 1 gives the resistivity values obtained from
1D inversion and the calculated apparent formation
factors. By applying least square best fit linear approach
of the individual groups of the dataset between and
pore-water resistivity ( ), the intrinsic formation factor
is obtained which ranges from 0.000318 to 0.0389
(Table 1). The porosity values can now be estimated by
substituting the values, and the and values are
taken as 1 and 2.5, respectively in equation 2.
In order to determine the hydraulic conductivity
(k), KCB equation 5 (Soupis et al., 2007) was used as,
( ) ( ) (( )
) (5)
where, is the grain size (0.01 cm) (Soupis et al.,
2007), fluid density (1000 kg/m3), and are
dynamic viscosity of the fluid (0.0014 kg/ms) and
acceleration due to gravity (Fetter, 1994), respectively.
Longitudinal conductance, ( ) (6)
Transverse resistance, ( ) (7)
where, is the saturated thickness of each layer, is
the true resistivity of each layer.
Coefficient of anisotropy √( ) (8)
where, and are the average transverse resistivity
and average longitudinal resistivity, respectively.
The rate of flow of the aquifer is called the
transmissivity (T), which can be calculated by the
following equation
(9)
where, k is hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer which
is obtained from equation 5 and h is thickness of the
aquifer derived from the 1D resistivity values of the
VES points. These enable us to derive a relation
between transverse resistivity and transmissivity, to be
discussed later. Also the relation between porosity and
electrical anisotropy is obtained in order to understand
the functional corresponding relationship.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As mentioned earlier, the correlation between pore-
water resistivity ( ) and inverted formation factor ( )
is obtained in order to calculate the intrinsic formation
factor ( ) (Figure 2). This revealed a straight

Figure 2. Determination of the intrinsic formation factor by plotting versus fluid resistivity .

31
Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017. S. Naidu and G. Gupta

Table 1. Evaluation of formation factors and other aquifer parameters obtained from geophysical data.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 1 31.54 1232 59.2 39.07 0.026 0.0008 5.771 0.727 43.052 72909.64 1.01
4 2 18.61 718 9.66 38.59 0.026 0.0014 7.219 1.468 14.182 23650.84 1.74
5 3 18.39 56 8.34 3.04 0.328 0.0179 20.01 42.04 350.594 729.82 1.17
6 4 29.99 234 14.1 7.80 0.128 0.0043 11.31 6.176 87.087 4345.22 1.08
8 5 53.71 330 8.12 6.14 0.163 0.0030 9.791 3.876 31.474 16631.3 2.1
9 6 55.99 291 54.6 5.20 0.192 0.0034 10.29 4.555 248.694 59333.28 1.75
10 7 57.41 7584 17.7 132.1 0.008 0.0001 2.790 0.077 1.367 117641.8 1.55
11 8 24.99 329 26.1 13.16 0.076 0.0030 9.791 3.876 101.165 143277.6 3.55
12 9 19.43 814 23.6 41.89 0.024 0.0012 6.787 1.209 28.531 19117.44 1.07
13 10 53.45 5249 6.98 98.21 0.010 0.0002 3.247 0.123 0.858 56219.69 1.41
14 11 19.34 15 40 0.775 1.29 0.066 33.7 293 11722.3 4378 1.16
15 12 11.43 25.7 32.7 2.25 0.445 0.0389 27.29 129.1 4222.99 7249.01 2.32
16 13 40.70 4901 15.7 120.4 0.008 0.0002 3.341 0.134 2.105 71877.67 1.12
17 14 19.33 7018 8.24 363.1 0.003 0.0001 2.890 0.086 0.709 47587.86 1.38
18 15 29.55 1326 23.2 44.87 0.022 0.0008 5.636 0.675 15.670 29009.36 1.58
19 16 24.89 217 22.8 8.72 0.115 0.0046 11.62 6.744 153.762 6882.21 1.12
21 17 40.54 668 7.77 16.48 0.061 0.0015 7.421 1.602 12.446 14343.5 1.52
22 18 30.77 87.4 57.4 2.84 0.352 0.0114 16.70 22.56 1294.99 53247.31 2.46
23 19 18.27 6424 7.01 351.6 0.003 0.0016 7.538 1.683 11.800 21178.16 2.11
24 20 16.05 70.3 2.82 4.38 0.228 0.0142 18.24 30.48 85.942 771.59 1.8
26 21 31.31 31381 25.3 1002 0.001 0.0000 1.588 0.014 0.352 729546.3 1.04
27 22 41.15 1470 19.3 35.72 0.028 0.0007 5.408 0.594 11.460 22878.05 1.07
28 23 22.72 109 23.8 4.80 0.208 0.0092 15.33 16.89 401.784 4733.19 1.31
29 24 41.89 444 41.6 10.60 0.094 0.0023 8.804 2.757 114.698 64523.55 1.75
30 25 40.65 10927 10.2 268.8 0.004 0.0001 2.429 0.051 0.516 115678.1 1.00
31 26 13.48 3342 0.662 247.9 0.004 0.0003 3.893 0.215 0.142 586.35 2.74
32 27 0.96 221 47.5 230.3 0.004 0.0045 11.55 6.553 311.282 13049.52 1.13
33 28 823.72 360 43.5 0.44 2.288 0.0028 9.525 3.547 154.298 88581.07 2.13
34 29 187.58 204 36.7 1.09 0.920 0.0049 11.92 7.324 268.802 12182.95 1.21

1. Well Number; 2. VES point; 3. Pore-water resistivity (Ω-m); 4. Bulk resistivity (Ω-m); 5. H (m); 6. Fa; 7. 1/Fa; 8.1/Fi; 9.
Porosity (%); 10. Hydraulic Conductivity (m/d); 11. Transmissivity (m2/d); 12. Transverse Resistance (Ω -m2); 13.
Electrical Anisotropy (λ).

line with slope 0.004 and intercept value of -0.044 and
giving the coefficient of determination of 0.583. The
correlation plot suggests that as ρw increases, the
formation factor (Fa) decreases which satisfy the
Archie’s equation.
In the present work, the spatial variation of
aquifer parameters were determined using the ordinary
kriging technique, which is a linear stochastic method
using semi-variogram model fitting schemes so as to
estimate values at unknown sites using the values at
known sites (Das et al., 2016).
4.1 Spatial Distribution of Aquifer Thickness
Figure 3 represents the spatial variability of the aquifer
thickness, which is extracted from the VES location
(Table 1). The aquifer thickness ranges from 0.67 to 59
m in the study area. The low aquifer thickness below 5
m was observed at locations 24 and 31. Higher aquifer
thickness greater than 30 m were seen along the coastal
sites 14, 15, 32 and 33, central region (9, 22 and 29) and
at site number 1 to the East, due to undulating
topography. Thickness of the aquifer plays a very
important role in understanding the hydraulic
parameters of the study area. Moderately thick aquifers
seen mainly in the Northwest and central part of the
study area may represent productive aquifer zones. In

32
Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017. S. Naidu and G. Gupta

the basaltic terrain, groundwater occurs under 4.3 Spatial Distribution of Hydraulic
unconfined conditions in the phreatic zone up to a depth Conductivity
of 15-20 m in the weathered zone, fractures and joints in
The spatial distribution map of the hydraulic
the massive unit and weathered/fractured vesicular units.
conductivity (Figure 5) is a vital parameter of aquifer
4.2 Spatial distribution of porosity systems as it strongly affects fluid flow by creating flow
barriers or preferential flow paths. The estimated
The spatial distribution map of the porosity is shown in
hydraulic conductivity (k) is shown in Table 1, which
Figure 4. Porosity is a very important parameter in the
ranges from 0.014 to 293 m/day. High k values (>100
aquifer characterization and groundwater management.
m/day) are observed in the coastal part at sites 14 and
Evidently the productivity of an aquifer depends on the
15. This part also revealed high porosity values
geological characteristics of the lithological units and
indicating that it is underlain by good aquifer materials
porosity. The aquifer porosity in the study area ranges
and thus making the area a good prospect for
from 1.5 to 33% (Table 1). Generally the porosity values
groundwater. The k map further suggests moderately
reported earlier from the southern part of the study area
high values in the Southern, Eastern and Central parts of
ranges up to about 30% (Das et al, 2016). Porosity
the study area, which are characterized by high porosity.
values >20% are observed at locations 5, 14, 15, 22, 24
This suggests that cracks and inter-connected pores play
and 28. Very high porosity values (>27%) are observed
a major role in the permeability to determine the
at south-western part at wells 14 and 15, since this part
conductivity of fractured rocks (Francis, 1981; Schwartz
of the coastal tract comprises of alluvium formation of
and Zhang, 2004).
fine grain and un-lithified sediments (Figure 4),
resulting in high porosity content.

 Geochemical sampling points.

Figure 3. Spatial variability map of aquifer thickness (H).

33
Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017. S. Naidu and G. Gupta

Figure 4. Spatial variability map of porosity.

Figure 5. Spatial variability map of hydraulic conductivity (k).

34
Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017.
Figure 6. Correlation plot between bulk resistivity and hydraulic conductivity.
The correlation between bulk resistivity and
hydraulic conductivity is usually considered for clean
saturated sediments, whose natural fluid characteristics
are constant (Henriet, 1975). The correlation plot
(Figure 6) reveals a negative relation between these two
parameters suggesting that the hydraulic conductivity
exponentially decreases with increasing bulk resistivity
due granitic gneiss and lateritic formations (Das et al.,
2016). Rock properties are influenced by the
permeability including particle size, its packing and
distribution and degree of lithification. In the present
study, the increase in hydraulic conductivity with
decreasing bulk resistivity is attributable to the better
inter-connectivity of fracture network in crystalline hard
rock.
4.4 Spatial Distribution of Transmissivity
Transmissivity (T) is defined as the rate of flow under a
unit hydraulic gradient through a unit width of aquifer of
given saturated thickness. It is the most important
parameter in hydrogeological environment because the
higher transmissivity, more productive is the aquifer. In
the present study, the T value ranges from 0.142 to
11722 m2/day (Table 1). Higher values are observed at
station 14 (11722.4 m2/day) and station 15 (4222.9
m2/day) (Figure 7). Station 22 in the central part of the
study area shows T value of 1294.9 m2/day. These three
sampling points are not considered in interpretation as
S. Naidu and G. Gupta
the very high T value tends to mask the effects of other
features in its vicinity. However, it is marked on the
map (Figure 7) and the T values are given in parenthesis.
These three stations have more aquifer thickness and
hydraulic conductivity, thereby leading to higher
transmissivity. Pumping test results of aquifer
parameters from the study area suggests that the
transmissivity ranges from 5.6 to 375 m2/day (CGWB,
2014). It can be observed from the present study that
apart from samples 14, 15 and 22 all other samples are
comparable with the transmissivity values given by
CGWB (2014). Also the spatial variation map of
transmissivity (Figure 7) reveals a positive
correspondence with hydraulic conductivity almost over
the entire study area in general and at Western part in
particular.
4.5 Correlation between Transmissivity and
Transverse Resistivity
As mentioned earlier, transmissivity is an indication of
the ability of a layer of known hydraulic conductivity to
transmit fluids through its entire thickness. It has been
advocated that the transmissivity of an aquifer is directly
proportional to its transverse resistance (Henriet, 1975;
Ward, 1990). In order to check the accuracy of the
computed hydraulic conductivity values determined
from the resistivity values, an attempt is made to obtain
a relationship between transmissivity and transverse
resistance. The transverse resistance value ranges
from 586 to >700000 Ω -m2 (Table 1). High transverse
35
Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017. S. Naidu and G. Gupta

Figure 7. Spatial variability map of transmissivity (T).

36
Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017. S. Naidu and G. Gupta

Figure 8. Relation between Transverse Resistance, TR (Ω -m2) and Transmissivity, T (m2/day)

resistance values are usually associated with zones of
high transmissivity and hence highly permeable to fluid
movement. A positive relation is obtained between
transmissivity and transverse resistance and the best fit
regression line is shown in Figure 8. This suggests that
the prospective aquifer zones in the study area increases
with increasing transverse resistance. These are
presumably due to changes in hydraulic conductivities
and electrical anisotropy, in addition to the disparity in
lithology, mineralogy, grain size, size and shape of the
pores and pore channels (Salem, 1999).
4.6 Correlation between Electrical Anisotropy
and Porosity
Fractures in rocks are important pathways for
groundwater flow and contaminant migration.
Groundwater flow through a fracture network is strongly
influenced by anisotropy resulting from the geometry of
the fractures (Slater et al., 2006), since both current flow
and groundwater are channeled through fractures in the
rock. It is reported by Zohdy (1974) that the coefficient
of anisotropy (λ) is generally 1 and seldom exceeds 2 in
most of the geological conditions. Keller and
Frischknecht (1966) are of the view that as the hardness
and compaction of rocks increases, λ also tends to
increase, which are thus associated with low porosity
and permeability.
Electrical anisotropy in the study area varies
from 1-3.55 (Table 1). The coefficient of anisotropy is
not uniform in all directions and is observed to increase
from SW to NE and also from SE to NW (Figure 9),
thus playing a major role in fracturing. More fracturing
towards the NE an SW directions suggest relatively
more prospective groundwater zone. Resistivity of
subsurface rocks affects both the electrical anisotropy
and porosity. Porosity critically depends upon the
existence of a petrophysical relationship between
geoelectrical properties in an area. An analogy drawn
between both these parameters (Figure 10) suggests that
about 80% of the sampling sites concentrated within λ
values 1-2 reveal higher porosity. This implies that the
study area portrays differing extent of saturation zones
within the lateritic and basaltic rock formation.

Figure 9. Spatial variability map of electrical anisotropy (λ).

37
Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017. S. Naidu and G. Gupta

Note: Regions of moderate to high porosity are dominant at electrical anisotropy between 1 and 2.

Figure 10. Plot of electrical anisotropy (λ) and porosity.

5 CONCLUSIONS near the coastal part of the study area. This is due to the
increase in sandy silt thickness and also due to high
An integrated method is presented to estimate the
porosity values because the grain size is very fine. The
aquifer parameters by using vertical electrical sounding
high porosity also advocates that the geological medium
(VES) and hydrochemical data of the coastal region of
could be fractured and indicative of high potential
Sindhudurg district, Western Maharashtra, India. This is
water-bearing formations. The regions of high porosity
very cost effective and quick when pumping test data of
also corroborates with the regions of electrical
the area is unavailable. The relation between bulk
anisotropy (between 1 and 2). This suggests the
resistivity and hydraulic conductivity is established by
subsurface in homogeniety is due to layers with
using VES inverted data and hydrochemical sample
different resistivity values and also due to fracturing,
analysis. Further, spatial variation of aquifer parameters
metamorphism and disseminated ore grains in the rocks.
like transmissivity, hydraulic conductivity, aquifer
thickness and porosity was evaluated and contoured From the foregoing it can be surmised that
using ordinary kriging scheme. geoelectrical sounding technique can be successfully
integrated with hydro geochemical parameters for
The transmissivity values are vary between 0.142
evaluating the hydraulic parameters of the aquifer. This
and 11722 m2/day, which can be attributed to the
scheme is very suitable where pumping tests data is not
subsurface inhomogeneity of the sandy silt and lateritic
available and therefore is cost effective and can
formations in the coastal part of the study area. The high
significantly reduce the amount of test drilling sites.
values of transmissivity could be due to the presence of
Such studies can thus be implemented for detailed
fractured medium saturated with water, suggesting high
investigation so as to provide rapid complementary data
potential within the water-bearing formation. The T
for the assessment of groundwater potential zones
values observed here are corroborating well with the
especially in hard-rock terrain of the country where
values obtained from pumping test data of CGWB
resources are meager.
(2014). A positive linear relationship has been obtained
between transmissivity and transverse resistance which CONFLICT OF INTEREST
suggests high permeability formations. The calculated
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
hydraulic conductivity reveals high values (>100 m/day)

38
Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to Dr. D.S. Ramesh, Director,
IIG for the support and kind permission to publish this
work. The first author Suneetha Naidu is thankful to IIG
SRF fellowship in which this work related to her Ph.D.
Thanks are due to Shri. B. I. Panchal for drafting the
figures.
ABBREVIATIONS
CGWB: Central Ground Water Board; GSI: Geological
Survey of India; KCB: Kozeny–Carman–Bear; VES:
Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES); DZ: Dar-Zarrouk.
REFERENCES
Archie, G. E., 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in
determining some reservoir characteristics. American
Institute of Mineral and Metal Engineering, Technical
Publication, 1422, Petroleum Technology, 8-13.
Asfahani, J., 2012. Quaternary aquifer transmissivity derived
from vertical electrical sounding measurements in the
Semi-Arid Khanasser Valley region, Syria. Acta
Geophysical, 60(4), 1143-1158.
Batte, A. G., Barifaijo, E., Kiberu, J. M., Kawule, W.,
Muwanga, A., Owor, M. and Kisekulo, J., 2010.
Correlation of geoelectric data with aquifer parameters
to delineate the groundwater potential of hard rock
terrain in Central Uganda. Pure appl. Geophys.,
167(12) 1549-1559.
Bobachev, C., 2002. IPI2Win: A windows software for an
automatic interpretation of resistivity sounding data,
Ph. D. Thesis, Moscow State University.
Boerner, F. D., Schopper, J. R. and Wller, A., 1996.
Evaluation of transport and storage properties in the
soil and groundwater zone from induced polarisation
measurements. Geophysics, 44, 583-601.
Cassidy, J., Comte, J., Nitsche, C., Wilson, R., Flynn, U. and
Ofterdinger, R., 2014. Combining multi-scale
geophysical techniques for robust hydro-structural
characterisation in catchments underlain by hard rock
in post-glacial region. J. Hydrol., 517, 715-731.
CGWB [Central Ground Water Board], 2014. Groundwater
information Sindhudurg district Maharashtra.
Technical Report for Ministry of Water Resources,
Government of India, 1835/DB/2014, 16.
Christensen, N. B. and Sorensen, K. I., 1998. Surface and
borehole electric and electromagnetic methods for
hydrogeological investigations. European Jour.
Environ. Engg. Geophys., 31, 75-90.
Croft, M. G., 1971. Method of calculating permeability from
electric log. U.S. Geological Survey Professional, 750,
265-269.
Das, A., Maiti, S., Suneetha, N. and Gupta, G., 2016.
Estimation of spatial variability of aquifer parameters
from geophysical methods: A case study of
Sindhudurg district, Maharashtra, India. Stoch.
Environ. Res. Risk Assess., 31, 1709-1726.
De Lima, O. A. L. and Sharma, M. M., 1990. A grain
conductivity approach to shaly sand. Geophysics, 50,
1347-1356.
Domenico, P. A. and Schwartz, F. W., 1990. Physical and
Chemical Hydrogeology, Wiley, New York, 324.
Fetter, C. W., 1994. Applied Hydrogeology, 3rd edn., Prentice-
Hall, New Jersey, 600.
Francis, R. M., 1981. Hydro geological properties of a
fractured porous aquifer, Winter River Basin, Prince
S. Naidu and G. Gupta
Edward Island. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, University
of Waterloo.
GSI [Geological Survey of India], 2000. Seismotectonic atlas
of India and its environs. Geological Survey of India
publication, 87.
Henriet, J. P., 1975. Direct applications of the Dar Zarrouk
parameters in ground water surveys. Geophys.
Prospect., 24, 344-353.
Huntley, D., 1986. Relations between permeability and
electrical resistivity in granular aquifers. Ground
Water, 24(4), 466-474.
Jackson, P. D., Taylor-Smith, D. and Stanford, P. N., 1978.
Resistivity-porosity-particles shape relationships for
marine sands. Geophysics, 43, 1250-1268.
Keller, G. V. and Frischknecht, F. C., 1966. Electrical
Methods in Geophysical Prospecting. 1st edn.,
Pregamon Press Inc.
Kelly, W., 1977. Geoelectric sounding for estimating aquifer
hydraulic conductivity. Ground Water, 15(6), 420-425.
Majumdar, R. K. and Das, D., 2011. Hydrological
characterization and estimation of aquifer properties
from electrical sounding data in Sagar Island region,
South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, India. Asian J. Earth
Sci., 4(2), 60-74.
Maillet, R., 1947. The fundamental equation of electrical
prospecting aquifer properties. Ground Water, 12,
529-556.
Mazáč, O., Kelly, W. E. and Landa, I., 1985. A
hydrogeophysical model for relations between
electrical and hydraulic properties of aquifers. J.
Hydrol., 79(1-2), 1-19.
Mazáč, O., Cislerova, M. and Vogel, T., 1988. Application of
geophysical methods in describing spatial variability
of saturated hydraulic conductivity in the zone of
aeration. J. Hydrol., 103, 117-126.
Niwas, S. and de Lima, O. A., 2003. Aquifer parameter
estimation from surface resistivity data. Ground
Water, 41(1), 94-99.
Niwas, S. and Celik, M., 2012. Equation estimation of porosity
and hydraulic conductivity of Ruhrtal aquifer in
Germany using near surface geophysics. J. Appl.
Geophys., 84, 77-85.
Niwas, S. and Singhal, D. C., 1985. Aquifer transmissivity of
porous media from resistivity data. J. Hydrol., 82, 143-
153.
Nwosu, L. I., Nwankwo, C. N. and Ekine, A. S., 2013.
Geoelectric investigation of the hydraulic properties of
the aquiferous zones for evaluation of groundwater
potentials in the complex geological area of Imo State,
Nigeria. Asian J. Earth Sci., 6, 1-15.
Patnode, W. H. and Wyllie, M. R. J., 1950. The presence of
conductive solids in reservoir rocks as factor in electric
log interpretation. Pet. Trans. Am. Inst. Min. Metall.
Pet. Engg., 189, 47-52.
Rubin, Y., 2003. Applied stochastic hydrogeology. Oxford
Univ. Press, New York, 416.
Rubin, Y. and Hubbard, S. S., 2005. Hydrogeophysics. Water
Science and Technology Library, 50, Springer, 521.
Salem, H. S., 1999. Determination of fluid transmissivity and
electric transverse resistance for shallow aquifers and
deep reservoirs from surface and well-log electric
measurements. Hydrol. Earth Syst .Sci., 3(3), 421-427.
Sattar, G. S., Keramat, M. and Shahid, S., 2016. Deciphering
transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of the
aquifer by vertical electrical sounding (VES)
experiments in Northwest Bangladesh. Appl. Water
Sci., 6, 35.
39
 Hydrospatial Analysis, 1(1), 28-40, 2017.
Schwartz, W. F. and Zhang, H., 2004. Fundamentals of
groundwater. Wiley, New York, 583.
Sen, P. N., Goode, P. A. and Sibbit, A., 1988. Electrical
conduction in clay bearing sandstones at low and high
salinities. J. Appl. Phys., 63, 4832-4840.
Shi, L. and Jiao, J. J., 2014. Seawater intrusion and coastal
aquifer management in China: A review. Environ.
Earth Sci., 72, 2811-2819.
Sikandar, P. and Christen, E. W., 2012. Geoelectrical sounding
for the estimation of hydraulic conductivity of alluvial
aquifers. Water Resour. Manag., 26(5), 1201-1215.
Slater, L., 2007. Near surface electrical characterization of
hydraulic conductivity: from petrophysical properties
to aquifer geometries-A review. Surv. Geophys., 28,
169-197.
Soupios, P. M., Kouli, M., Vallianatos, F., Vafidis, A. and
Stavroulakis, G., 2007. Estimation of aquifer hydraulic
parameters from surficial geophysical methods: A case
study of Keritis Basin in Chania (Crete-Greece). J.
Hydrol., 338, 122-131.
Ungemach, P., Moslaghini, F. and Duprat, A., 1969. Emphasis
in determination of transmissivity coefficient and
application in nappe alluvial aquifer Rhine. Bull. Inst.
Assoc. Sci. Hydrol., 14(3), 169-190.
Vinegar, H. J. and Waxman, M. H., 1984. Induced polarisation
of shaly sands. Geophysics, 49(8), 1267-1287.
******
View publication stats
S. Naidu and G. Gupta
Ward, S. H., 1990. Resistivity and induced polarization
methods. USA Investigations in Geophysics no 5,
Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics (Society
of Exploration Geophysicists), ed. S. H. Ward, 1, 147-
189.
Waxman, M. H. and Smits, L. J. M., 1968. Electrical
conductivities in oil bearing sands. J. Soc. Pe. Engg.,
8, 107-122.
Werner, A. D., 2010. A review of seawater intrusion and its
management in Australia. Hydrogeol. J., 18, 281-285.
Werner, A. D., Bakker, M., Post, E. V. A., Vandenbohede, A.,
Lu, C., Ataie-Ashtiani, B., Simmons, C. T. and Barry,
D. A., 2013. Seawater intrusion processes,
investigation and management: Recent advances and
future challenges. Adv. Water Resour., 51, 3-26.
Winsauer, W. O. and McCardell, W. M., 1953. Ionic double-
layer conductivity in reservoir rock. Trans. Am. Inst.
Min. Metall. Pet. Eng., 198, 129-134.
Worthington, P. F., 1975. Quantitative geophysical
investigations of granular aquifers. Geophys. Surv., 3,
313-366.
Worthington, P. F., 1993. The uses and abuses of the Archie’s
equation: the formation factor – porosity relationship.
J. Appl. Geophys., 30, 215-228.
Zohdy, A. A. R., 1974. Use of Dark Zarrouk curves in the
interpretation of vertical electrical sounding data. U.S.
Geol. Surv. Bull., 41, 1313-D.
40